[font color=\'#000000\']KennethThis is JUST my opinion. I am not an expert.

I don't get caught up in the heavy duty technology. I have a lazy mind. I depend on those who love to delve into such things to give me the run-down.

But when it comes to comparing digicam sensors to 1.6x crop factor sensors all I need to know is that the digicam sensors are the size of my little fingernail (ok I have big hands) and the 1.6x crop factor sensors are orders of magnitude larger with comparitively huge photo-sites.

Then there's the lenses. No comparison again.

Digicams are fun cameras that can make good 4x6 prints and put impressive images on a computer monitor. I like my 10D but it's absolutely the smallest sensor I will own untill things change to a revolutionary degree. I still don't print anything beyond 8x10 with it.

If I want to make large prints I use film and I eagerly await the day I can afford the equivilant of a p-25 although that may be years ... or never. Maybe I'll get the Kodak back Michael uses in an interim step one day but even that is out of my league right now.

I'm not even tempted by the 1Ds any more because I'm not willing to invest that much money in a camera that is 'out-teched' every two years.

It all depends on what you shoot. If I was a wildlife shooter the 1Ds would be perfect. As a landscape enthusiast I have just decided to stay with film for now but I got the Contax AF so at least I could step up to digital without having to invest in a whole new system.

I guess what I'm trying to say is ... don't take any digicam very serriously. They are not for serrious photography. But again ... that's just my self-centered opinion.[/font]

Thanks to all for responding. I use a Hasselblad for portraits and some landscapes but rely on my Maxxum 9 with 8 lenses for wildlife and most landscapes. I'm hesitant to make the digital transition because of rapid depreciation to get equivalent quality so I've been scanning negs. But the digital darkroom siren begs me to speed it up.

Don't blame you for being hesitant. The price of entry is madness given that the tech progresses SO fast at this point.

A year ago or so I was sorta where you were at and bought a G5 along with lens adapters for wide and tele. It was so unsatifactory that I sold it in two weeks and bought a 10D.

All the 10D did was make me wish I had a 1Ds because I shoot a lot of wide angle.

I've now taken the vertical/battery grip off the 10D, keep the 50mm f/1.4 on it almost all the time and consider it my fun/casual photography camera.

I'm quite happy to have gone back to film with the Contax 645 although not happy enough to go all the way back to 4 x 5 (I gotta sell that thing). I'll go digital again when digital makes sense.

Michael is fast with the gun when it comes to defending the price of heavy duty digital but he's just not thinking straight. Unless somebody brings the price of MF digital down out of the stratosphere it will cease to be very soon. Why professional photographers are willing to drop $33k for a back when a 1Ds does the same thing .... easier ... is beyond me. Something has to change fast or MF is as dead as the 454 Chevy.

The only photographers who actually NEED 22MP are landscape shooters who want to make truly large prints. Everybody else is throwing their money away. They rave and rave over on robgalbraith.com about how incredible the files are but the wiser ones over their remind them they don't need all those pixels for even a Vogue sized double page spread. Sure ... it's nice ... and exciting ... but it's not worth an extra $25k.

If nature and wildlife is your thing then wait for the next 1Ds and dump the Minolta. It's an incredible camera and the product is unbelievable. A year ago Michael was so in love with his Canon he started saying he was mostly into wildlife shooting 'these days'. I notice now he makes most of his images with his Contax and MF back and they are landscape images.

Or ... be happy with film. But regardless, forget about digicams and even the crop factor DSLRs. You will not be happy with anything less than the real thing.

Maybe Nikon will come out with a midrange priced full frame camera. Lucky you ... you can go either way.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Jonathon,I think you're right, but.... I,m going to give it one more month and see what the Minolta D7 has to offer mainly because of my investment in Minolta mount lenses. If it turns out to be a dud (i.e. behind the curve), I'll dump all my Minolta equipment and (sob) cross over to the dark side.Ken[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Good plan, we've been waiting this long, another month won't hurt. D7 is very unlikely to be a dud IMO.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Michael,DxO has just intoduced a component for the Minolta A2 that corrects its deficiencies except one (noise). Does this mean that if you used this application together with Noise Ninja you would get the same technical result as using the Canon 20D?Ken[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Michael,The proof is in the pudding. Since you own an A2 and some of the DxO software wouldn't it be simple for you to aquire the A2 module and run a comparison of an 8"x!0" print against your pre-ordered 10D next month? This is not a spurious question. You have already stated how ergonomic the A2 is and how light it is in the feild. Before any of us join you in investing in heavier albeit superior hardware, which seems to depreciate by the minute, you might do us a service to see if the investment is a value proposition.Ken[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Thanks to all for responding. I use a Hasselblad for portraits and some landscapes but rely on my Maxxum 9 with 8 lenses for wildlife and most landscapes. I'm hesitant to make the digital transition because of rapid depreciation to get equivalent quality so I've been scanning negs. But the digital darkroom siren begs me to speed it up.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Thanks to all for responding. I use a Hasselblad for portraits and some landscapes but rely on my Maxxum 9 with 8 lenses for wildlife and most landscapes.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Have you given much thought to the 1D-MkII? Unless you regularly print larger than 20x30, it has enough detail to meet most photographic needs and then some, and the image noise levels are very impressive. It has excellent AF, a large buffer, and is very responsive. It's ideal for sports and wildlife photography, and would do very well for portraits also as long as you're aren't making really huge prints. The only area where it would fall short is wide angle; the 1.3x crop factor comes in there and going wider than a 20mm equivalent would be difficult (the 16-35L zoom would become a 20.8-45.5mm equivalent). Only you can decide if that is an issue for you or not. I own the 1D-MkII and the 1Ds, and if I had to choose between the two and sell the other, I'd keep the MkII. I don't do a lot of super-wide angle stuff, and the MkII is already resolution overkill for most of my clients' needs. But the speed and responsiveness make it a joy to use.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Jonathon,I think you're right, but.... I,m going to give it one more month and see what the Minolta D7 has to offer mainly because of my investment in Minolta mount lenses. If it turns out to be a dud (i.e. behind the curve), I'll dump all my Minolta equipment and (sob) cross over to the dark side.Ken[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']I don't sweat that kind of stuff, as long as the incorrect spelling doesn't start with commonly-encountered colorful metaphors. If you do decide to switch to Canon, eBay is probably going to be your best bet for getting a decent price for your Minolta stuff.[/font]